Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

Pre-trib rapture proof.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Link
On visions and dreams not always describing chronological events, let me give an example from scripture.

In Genesis 41, the Pharoah has two dreams. In the first dream, 7 cows or bulls eat up another 7 cows or bulls. In the second dream, 7 heads of grain replace another 7 heads of grain.

In history, which happened first? Was the cow dream fulfilled first, and then the grain dream fulfilled after that? No, even though the Bible tells the order in which the dreams occurred, and the order in which the events Pharoah saw in the dreams occurred, the dreams were not fulfilled sequentially in chronological order.

Rather, what we see is that the first dream and second dream were referring to the same events. They were fulfilled at the same time.

This is a concept to consider when inteprreting passages of Revelation. There are several visionary experiences. The manchild vision may contain elements of events described in different ways in other portions of the vision, and so on.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/7/07 6:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
On visions and dreams not always describing chronological events, let me give an example from scripture.

In Genesis 41, the Pharoah has two dreams. In the first dream, 7 cows or bulls eat up another 7 cows or bulls. In the second dream, 7 heads of grain replace another 7 heads of grain.

In history, which happened first? Was the cow dream fulfilled first, and then the grain dream fulfilled after that? No, even though the Bible tells the order in which the dreams occurred, and the order in which the events Pharoah saw in the dreams occurred, the dreams were not fulfilled sequentially in chronological order.

Rather, what we see is that the first dream and second dream were referring to the same events. They were fulfilled at the same time.

This is a concept to consider when inteprreting passages of Revelation. There are several visionary experiences. The manchild vision may contain elements of events described in different ways in other portions of the vision, and so on.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/7/07 6:58 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
Who can satisfy wrote
Quote:

Link, you say say that I assume the book is chronological. Yet you ASSUME that it isn't. Show me how it doesn't work chronologically. Show me any evidence that the events are completely layered within one another. Then show me how you have a vial being poured out on those who follow the beast before the beast is introduced.



You are missing the point. The point is I said there is no contradiction if you don't take these events as chronological, but rather as separate visionary explanations of some of the same events. Then you argued that the passages still can't be interpreted as non-chronological because this or that event happens before or after the trumpets. If it is possible to not the passages as in chronological order, then the events you refer to would not necessarily happen before or after the trumpet passage.

Yes, I assumed, for the sake of argument, that the trumpet passage and other passages were not written in chronological order. Your argument against this amounts to this, if you assume that the passages are not in chronological order it doesn't work, because the passages are in chronological order-- faulty reasoning and circular at that.

Quote:

Furthermore, if you truly discount any chronology of Rev., I mean ANY, then explain how you get around three raptures that we know of. That of the manchild, the two witnesses, and the tribulational saints. Poor exegesis says that they all occur at the same time. Just not possible.


Well, it is a good thing I have not argued that there is no chronological order.

You seem to assume that the m/Manchild is the church. The m/Manchild is to rule all nations with a rod of iron. In Psalm 2, the LORD's Son will break the nations with a rod of iron. According to Revelation 19:15, the Word of God will rule all nations with the rod of Iron. The seed of the woman who brought forth the manchild are those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

I've already dealt with Paul's writings and you have done nothing but assume that he is talking about the same subject. Apparently your friend does too. Neither you or your friend has shown or acknowledge the change in subject within II Thess. We beseech you concerning the coming of our Lord together, that you are not shaken by anything you have heard as though THAT day, what day?, the day of Christ is at hand.


As I have pointed out, various scriptures show that the church continues and endures unto the day of Christ. Look up references to 'day of Christ' in my previous posts and in a concordance.

Also, Paul teaches that the rapture occurs at the coming of the Lord, and that the man of sin is destroyed at the coming of the Lord.

II Thes. 1 teaches that the church will receive rest at the coming of the Lord, while taking vengence on them that do not obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

These are the plain teachings of Paul that you have not dealt with.

Quote:

I know things got bad for them and it was possibly that fact that some had started teaching what some of you want to teach today. That because things were so bad, the Lord had already come or was about to come. Now, if they believed that they were going through the tribulation before the rapture, then why would they be fearful if they thought things were bad enough for that to take place at any moment? If they really believed the church was going through this torment, then they should have been excited, Jesus is coming! If that was the case, then Paul would have been telling them, "don't get so excited because it is not what you think, the end is not yet." But that isn't what he said.


I can see your point. On the other hand, if the Thessalonians had been taught that some of the signs listed in Revelation would occur before the end, they could have been troubled because the teaching that Christ was about to return right away did not seem to match what they had learned. We do not know if they knew what was in Revelation, through what Paul had taught them, but if they were expecting the seas to turn to blood, etc., they could have been a bit troubled.

Quote:

If Paul is not telling them that things will get worse before the Lord comes back, then how is that comforting? From his words, it is obvious that he is telling them that they need not fear that the Day of Christ is at hand because the man of sin has to be revealed first. He had already told them in his previous letter how they were going to escape beforehand and here he is telling them that they didn't miss it.


Are you referring to a letter not found in the canon? I Thessalonians does not teach what you are saying. It says that the readers would be resurrected or raptured at the Lord's coming. II Thessalonians says tha tthe man of sin will be destroyed at His coming.

Paul does not mention anything about a pre-tribulation rapture. Neither does any other scripture. So far, you have been arguing for 'hints', but the ones you have given are very weak. You intepret some of the most allegorical visions in a way that supports your view. But your interpretation causes us to have to interpret Paul's terminology inconsistently. Paul uses the expression 'coming' of the Lord in reference to the rapture and to the judgment of the man of sin. He has the church receiving relief, and the wicked receiving vengence at the coming of the Lord. Why not intepret the allegorical scriptures in light of the straightforward ones? Otherwise, you have to make the same terms (e.g. 'coming of the Lord,' 'day of Christ') arbitrarily mean different things in different passages written by Paul, just to make them fit with your interpretation of the allegorical passages. That is a big weakness of the pre-trib view.

Quote:

Jesus also told them that they should pray that they be accounted worthy to escape.


He also told the people to run away from Jerusalem. He didn't say they would be caught up into the sky to escape. He said run. He said escape, not you will just be rescued, passively.

If a man is in a house that is burning down and gets out, you can say he escaped. You have the church being taken out of the way before the fire starts.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/7/07 7:00 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link whocansatisfy
Quote:
You are missing the point. The point is I said there is no contradiction if you don't take these events as chronological, but rather as separate visionary explanations of some of the same events. Then you argued that the passages still can't be interpreted as non-chronological because this or that event happens before or after the trumpets. If it is possible to not the passages as in chronological order, then the events you refer to would not necessarily happen before or after the trumpet passage.


Again, you are missing the point. The point is you apparently assume that the events of Rev are not Chronological. You have done NOTHING to prove that except to refer to a reference of cows and heads of grain. Sorry, that is just a bit too much of a stretch and exactly the type of circular reasoning that keeps you in the dark on this subject IMO. The events of Rev. ARE chronological for the most part and to say they are not is simply an attempt of those to make the post-trib viewpoint valid. You guys are more guilty of making Scripture “fit” your interpretation than anyone. You claim that Paul’s references to the coming of Christ for the church and the day of Christ are the same event while telling us that the voluminous amounts of Scripture that cause you problems are simply whisked away with a mere, “they might not be chronological.” I’m having a hard time taking you seriously. There is too much within Rev. that proves chronology for you to say it cannot be. That is poor exegesis and interpretation on your part. If you ever find something to prove otherwise, I’d be interested in hearing it, but this merry-go-round you want to ride is not for me.


Quote:
You seem to assume that the m/Manchild is the church. The m/Manchild is to rule all nations with a rod of iron. In Psalm 2, the LORD's Son will break the nations with a rod of iron. According to Revelation 19:15, the Word of God will rule all nations with the rod of Iron. The seed of the woman who brought forth the manchild are those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.


Are you serious? Can you really make such an outlandish statement and think I can believe with any small amount of sanity that you have actually read what I have written? Where did I say the manchild was the church? Where. Show me the quote. You will probably find it next to your proof for post-trib, so when you find it, give it to me.

If you care to read what I wrote, notice I said the manchild is the 144,000 from the woman Israel. Again, you have dismissed my view because you assume that I said the manchild is the church? Then you want to make the manchild the Son of God? Welcome to fantasy land!


Quote:
As I have pointed out, various scriptures show that the church continues and endures unto the day of Christ. Look up references to 'day of Christ' in my previous posts and in a concordance.

Also, Paul teaches that the rapture occurs at the coming of the Lord, and that the man of sin is destroyed at the coming of the Lord.

This is my last time to address this as you keep wanting to go around the same merry-go-round. I have dealt with your Scriptures and you keep saying that “Paul teaches…..” The best you can declare from II Thess is that Paul teaches the church will be raptured when the Lord comes for them to catch them away. And yes, the man of sin will be destroyed at the Second advent or “the day of Christ,” as Paul referenced it. You can view it any way you want, but there are two events referenced here, at least to those who want to read it that way. What you cannot do is merely declare that Paul is plain when you say that both events take place at the same time. That is simply wrong. Believe what you will, but believe it based upon the truth. It is NOT plain. To reach either conclusion requires exegesis and interpretation, so you have to make some assumptions just as the pre-, or mid-tribulationalists. The thing I hope we can agree on is, it is NOT plain.
Quote:
I can see your point. On the other hand, if the Thessalonians had been taught that some of the signs listed in Revelation would occur before the end, they could have been troubled because the teaching that Christ was about to return right away did not seem to match what they had learned. We do not know if they knew what was in Revelation, through what Paul had taught them, but if they were expecting the seas to turn to blood, etc., they could have been a bit troubled.


O.K., now here is where you get real interesting. Your claim has been all along that the early church never believed in a pre-trib rapture, but you state here that they were taught that Christ was about to return right away. I’m not sure how you can come up with that if they didn’t believe in a pre-trib rapture. Nonetheless, you also claim that we do not know if they knew what was in Revelation. Are you sure you want to stand by that comment? I can tell you for a certainty that they did NOT know what was in Rev. simply because Rev. did not exist. Rev. was not written until all the Apostles, including Paul, were dead. If you have done any kind of study on this subject, you would know that the letters of Paul were written before most of the gospels. Therefore, John did not write Rev until after his gospel. Neither was he exiled on the isle of Patmos during the days of the Apostles ministry. He was the last and his book is the last. Therefore, it is safe to say that the early church did NOT know what was in Revelation. So you have to ask yourself again, “What were they afraid of?” Without the book of Rev., you have to come to the conclusion that they were afraid that the Day of Christ, His judgment, was upon them. IF, again I say IF, they believed that they were going through all the events leading up to His day, then why would they be afraid? Again, it should have been something that would excite them. That being the case, it would make no sense at all that Paul would try to comfort them by telling them, “don’t worry, you will go through hell before the Day of the Lord.” No, there is really only one conclusion in light of the facts we have. They were afraid that they had missed the coming of Christ “for the church” (ie. That they had not been accounted worthy to escape) Why? Because of the events that they were surrounded by which certainly looked like the Day of Christ was upon them. Try to imagine living back then with Nero breathing down their necks and eventually destroying Jerusalem. It would simply be lunacy to tell the church, “look, don’t worry about the terrible events that surround you because before Christ returns to earth to establish His kingdom, things are going to get much worse with the man of sin.”

You can believe that if you want, I choose to believe what the facts tell us in light of the Scripture we have. They were afraid they had missed something and Paul tells them they hadn’t. Now consider Paul’s words in that light. “Listen closely to what I have to say concerning the coming of our Lord for us. (rapture) Don’t be afraid because of what others have told you, or those who claim that I have said something different from what I’ve already told you, that the “Day of Christ” (Second advent) is at hand. It’s not! Before that day can come, there must be a falling away and the man of sin revealed.”

Link, it’s been nice sharing ideas with you and I appreciate the time you have taken. I have given you many reasons for my belief based upon historical facts concerning the church, Paul’s writings, and those of Christ and John. You can believe what you will, it matters not for me. Just know that there is more to make a pre-trib or mid-trib stance than what you and other post-tribbers would have the world believe. I entered into this with a desire to cover all the bases. I’ve been re-reading and studying this more intently lately because of our discussion. I understand the “reasoning” of post-trib, but nothing I have read would suggest that it could even be possible. I am open to realistic interpretation and Scriptural evidence. So far I have seen nothing that would make the case for post-trib. In fact, the more I look at it, the more convinced I am of my position. I was truly hoping that someone could offer something substantial that I could look at and see where we might be missing it. Unfortunately, I’ve been given nothing but assumptions that the Scriptures we have do not mean what they say because they can’t be chronological, etc. It just goes around and around. So, I’m through. I’ll read what you have to say if anything, but I’ll not respond unless you can come up with something that has sound logic, reasoning, exegesis, etc. If not, I’ll simply let it go.

Be blessed. Whatever you are doing in Indonesia I pray that God will bless you and keep you.
Friendly Face
Posts: 414
2/7/07 11:15 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
whocansatisfy wrote
Quote:

The point is you apparently assume that the events of Rev are not Chronological. You have done NOTHING to prove that except to refer to a reference of cows and heads of grain. Sorry, that is just a bit too much of a stretch and exactly the type of circular reasoning that keeps you in the dark on this subject IMO. The events of Rev. ARE chronological for the most part and to say they are not is simply an attempt of those to make the post-trib viewpoint valid. You guys are more guilty of making Scripture “fit” your interpretation than anyone.


Let's get some facts straight.

1. The argument that the last trump was the seventh trump was YoDude's and another posters.
2. YoDude is mid-trib.
3. You kept accusing me of tying the two trumps together.
4. In response to another poster, I argued, hypothetically, one could read the 7th trumpet as refering to the end of the tribulation, IF you read the passage non-hypothetically.
5. Post-trib does not depend on seeing the seventh trump as the last trump.
6. Therefore, your argument above is just a bunch of rhetoric.

Look at the manchild passage. It has to take a step back in time from the trumpet passage. If one sees the Manchild as Christ, then his birth occurred before Revelation was even written. If one sees it as the church, the church was born before Revelation was written.

If, as you are arguing, you see the manchild as the 144,000, then the 'birth' of the manchild happened earlier, back in Revelation 7. So, clearly the visions are taking a step back in time.
Quote:

You claim that Paul’s references to the coming of Christ for the church and the day of Christ are the same event while telling us that the voluminous amounts of Scripture that cause you problems are simply whisked away with a mere, “they might not be chronological.”


You don't seem to be following the argument here. Whether or not the seven trumpets are chronological has little to do with the fact that the church will be raptured and resurrected when Christ comes back.

Btw, where have I even stated that the coming of Christ and the day of Christ are the same event? What I HAVE done is quoted quotes from Paul, pointed out what Paul said in a way that demonstrates what events happen at the coming of Christ and the things that will continue to the day of Christ.

God continues His good work in the church until the day of Christ. You have the church being raptured out 7 years before.

Paul has the church being raptured at the coming of Christ. Paul also has the man of sin being destroyed at the coming of Christ. Paul says that the church will receive rest/relief at the coming of Christ, when Christ comes with vengence on them that known not God. You have the church receiving rest/relief seven years before the coming of Christ.

The two paragraphs above are examples of the kinds of things I've been writing. Often, I just quote verses. Why do you find this so difficult to accept?


Quote:
I’m having a hard time taking you seriously. There is too much within Rev. that proves chronology for you to say it cannot be.


I think we can both agree that some parts are chronological and that some parts are not completely chronological. If you disagree, look at my argument about the birth of the manchild, above. If you think it is the 144,000, then it is really hard to get around the fact that the vision is 'backtracking' in the chronology.

Plus, the portion of scripture we discussed being chronological has nothing to do with your trying to prove pre-trib or disprove post-trib. The 7th trump being the last-trump is not essential to post-trib or historic premillineal views.

Quote:

Link:
Are you serious? Can you really make such an outlandish statement and think I can believe with any small amount of sanity that you have actually read what I have written? Where did I say the manchild was the church? Where. Show me the quote. You will probably find it next to your proof for post-trib, so when you find it, give it to me.



Whocansatisfy,

Don't get so bent out of shape. Notice that I said, 'It seems that you believe...' This was based on your line of reasoning. I don't recall your saying that the 144k will be the manchild. But your argument was about their being a rapture after the 7th trumpet. If you have the 144k being raptured this early on in the book, and you see the book being chronological, then you don't think the 144k will be among those resurrected at the coming of Christ? You sure have a lot of raptures. And I don't see anything that points us to the idea that the manchild company are specifically the 144,000. This just sounds like guesswork.

You want me to prove 'proof' for post-trib. Post trib, or probably better, historic premillinealism is easy to arrive at. You just read scripture for what it says and don't try to redefine terms.

Paul says that the church will be raptured at the coming of the Lord. He says that the man of sin will be destroyed at the brighteness of the Lord's coming. He says that the Lord will give the church relief when he comes with vengence on the unbelievers. Given all this, it makes sense that when Paul starts off a passage beseeching the church by the coming of the Lord and the rapture, not to worry that the day of Christ has come, that he has the same time period in mind throughout the passage. It's just reading for scripture for what it says. It is the 'default' understanding.

You arbitrarily the Lord's 'coming' as two separate events 7 years apart. You label the second event as 'the day of Christ.' But I have showed you scritpure that indicates things continue on for the church 'until the day of Christ.' So your definitions are not well-grounded in Paul's terminology.

I can understand interperting Paul's phrases differently if you had some really solid scriptural evidence that demanded you do so. If scripture were clear that a rapture would occur 7 years before the coming of Christ, particularly if Paul made this argument, I could see it. But you are not able to show any scripture that makes a good case for this. You show things like, "not appointed unto wrath," and perhaps stronger, that a certain church in Asia Minor would escape things that would come on the earth.

Post-trib does not really need to be 'proved.' It is the default understanding. The burden of proof is on you to show why a straightforward reading of Paul is not true. We just look at the resurrections and raptures that _are_ in scripture and when scripture says that they will happen, and believe what scripture says. You have a complicated scenario with a rapture occurring 7 years before the Lord's coming, with no scripture telling us that this will happen.

If you care to read what I wrote, notice I said the manchild is the 144,000 from the woman Israel. Again, you have dismissed my view because you assume that I said the manchild is the church? Then you want to make the manchild the Son of God? Welcome to fantasy land!


Quote:

This is my last time to address this as you keep wanting to go around the same merry-go-round. I have dealt with your Scriptures and you keep saying that “Paul teaches…..” The best you can declare from II Thess is that Paul teaches the church will be raptured when the Lord comes for them to catch them away. And yes, the man of sin will be destroyed at the Second advent or “the day of Christ,” as Paul referenced it. You can view it any way you want, but there are two events referenced here, at least to those who want to read it that way. What you cannot do is merely declare that Paul is plain when you say that both events take place at the same time. That is simply wrong. Believe what you will, but believe it based upon the truth. It is NOT plain. To reach either conclusion requires exegesis and interpretation, so you have to make some assumptions just as the pre-, or mid-tribulationalists. The thing I hope we can agree on is, it is NOT plain.


1. See 'default understanding' argument above.
2. This does not deal with II Thes 1, which tells us that Christ will come giving the church rest, and executing vengence on them that do not obey the Gospel.

Quote:

O.K., now here is where you get real interesting. Your claim has been all along that the early church never believed in a pre-trib rapture, but you state here that they were taught that Christ was about to return right away. I’m not sure how you can come up with that if they didn’t believe in a pre-trib rapture.


Read what I wrote. Someone was teaching that the day of Christ was at hand. They were being taught that Jesus was going to come right away-- that the day of Christ was at hand. Remember, I am arguing for historical premillinealism, not pre-trib. Read my posts in that light. Paul told them not to be troubled by this idea.

Quote:

Nonetheless, you also claim that we do not know if they knew what was in Revelation. Are you sure you want to stand by that comment? I can tell you for a certainty that they did NOT know what was in Rev. simply because Rev. did not exist. Rev. was not written until all the Apostles, including Paul, were dead. If you have done any kind of study on this subject, you would know that the letters of Paul were written before most of the gospels. Therefore, John did not write Rev until after his gospel.


Sure, I want to stand by my statement. I don't mean they knew the visions and what happened in each vision. I mean it is conceivable that God revealed to Paul the timeline in which events would occur and that it was not written down in Paul's epistles, but later was recorded in scripture in the form of apocalyptic literature. Did all the apostles receive a complete revelation of the Gospel, end times etc? These are some questions I don't have the answer to, but it is conceivable.

Paul apparently spoke some things to these people that we weren't there to here, as referenced in II Thes.



Quote:
So you have to ask yourself again, “What were they afraid of?” Without the book of Rev., you have to come to the conclusion that they were afraid that the Day of Christ, His judgment, was upon them. IF, again I say IF, they believed that they were going through all the events leading up to His day, then why would they be afraid?


Paul said they were 'troubled.' Conflicting doctrines can trouble people. You assume fear here.

Also, if there were revelation going around from apostles and prophets of the really bad things that would happen in the end times, some might fear. There was extra-scriptural revelation back then. The church was 'charismatic.'

Quote:

Again, it should have been something that would excite them. That being the case, it would make no sense at all that Paul would try to comfort them by telling them, “don’t worry, you will go through hell before the Day of the Lord.” No, there is really only one conclusion in light of the facts we have. They were afraid that they had missed the coming of Christ “for the church” (ie. That they had not been accounted worthy to escape) Why? Because of the events that they were surrounded by which certainly looked like the Day of Christ was upon them. Try to imagine living back then with Nero breathing down their necks and eventually destroying Jerusalem. It would simply be lunacy to tell the church, “look, don’t worry about the terrible events that surround you because before Christ returns to earth to establish His kingdom, things are going to get much worse with the man of sin.”



Your scenario sounds reasonable IF YOU ASSUME A PRE-TRIB RAPTURE. But the problem is, where do you get the pre-trib rapture from in scripture in the first place. It isn't enough for certain passages to make sense if you assume a pre-trib rapture. Pre-trib requires reading Paul inconsistently. If there isn't any scripture to support the timing of the pre-trib rapture in the first place, then it doesn't make sense to read it into passages of scripture. So where is the scripture that teaches the pre-trib rapture.

Rapture at the second coming si the 'default' understanding. It comes from reading Paul's terminology consistently to refer to the same things. The Lord's coming means the Lord's coming, and so on.

Quote:

Be blessed. Whatever you are doing in Indonesia I pray that God will bless you and keep you.


Thanks. Btw, if I've gotten smart alek a bit in this conversation, like in that early post. I apologize. I don't think only post-tribbers are going to make it at the rapture, so I don't see this as an issue of salvation. I appreciate the ministries of many pre-tribbers. I do think pre-trib mixed with easy believism can be a dangerous combination in the end times, however.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/8/07 6:31 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Link
whocansatisfy wrote
Quote:

The point is you apparently assume that the events of Rev are not Chronological. You have done NOTHING to prove that except to refer to a reference of cows and heads of grain. Sorry, that is just a bit too much of a stretch and exactly the type of circular reasoning that keeps you in the dark on this subject IMO. The events of Rev. ARE chronological for the most part and to say they are not is simply an attempt of those to make the post-trib viewpoint valid. You guys are more guilty of making Scripture “fit” your interpretation than anyone.


Let's get some facts straight.

1. The argument that the last trump was the seventh trump was YoDude's and another posters.
2. YoDude is mid-trib.
3. You kept accusing me of tying the two trumps together.
4. In response to another poster, I argued, hypothetically, one could read the 7th trumpet as refering to the end of the tribulation, IF you read the passage non-hypothetically.
5. Post-trib does not depend on seeing the seventh trump as the last trump.
6. Therefore, your argument above is just a bunch of rhetoric.

Look at the manchild passage. It has to take a step back in time from the trumpet passage. If one sees the Manchild as Christ, then his birth occurred before Revelation was even written. If one sees it as the church, the church was born before Revelation was written.

If, as you are arguing, you see the manchild as the 144,000, then the 'birth' of the manchild happened earlier, back in Revelation 7. So, clearly the visions are taking a step back in time.
Quote:

You claim that Paul’s references to the coming of Christ for the church and the day of Christ are the same event while telling us that the voluminous amounts of Scripture that cause you problems are simply whisked away with a mere, “they might not be chronological.”


You don't seem to be following the argument here. Whether or not the seven trumpets are chronological has little to do with the fact that the church will be raptured and resurrected when Christ comes back.

Btw, where have I even stated that the coming of Christ and the day of Christ are the same event? What I HAVE done is quoted quotes from Paul, pointed out what Paul said in a way that demonstrates what events happen at the coming of Christ and the things that will continue to the day of Christ.

God continues His good work in the church until the day of Christ. You have the church being raptured out 7 years before.

Paul has the church being raptured at the coming of Christ. Paul also has the man of sin being destroyed at the coming of Christ. Paul says that the church will receive rest/relief at the coming of Christ, when Christ comes with vengence on them that known not God. You have the church receiving rest/relief seven years before the coming of Christ.

The two paragraphs above are examples of the kinds of things I've been writing. Often, I just quote verses. Why do you find this so difficult to accept?


Quote:
I’m having a hard time taking you seriously. There is too much within Rev. that proves chronology for you to say it cannot be.


I think we can both agree that some parts are chronological and that some parts are not completely chronological. If you disagree, look at my argument about the birth of the manchild, above. If you think it is the 144,000, then it is really hard to get around the fact that the vision is 'backtracking' in the chronology.

Plus, the portion of scripture we discussed being chronological has nothing to do with your trying to prove pre-trib or disprove post-trib. The 7th trump being the last-trump is not essential to post-trib or historic premillineal views.

Quote:

Link:
Are you serious? Can you really make such an outlandish statement and think I can believe with any small amount of sanity that you have actually read what I have written? Where did I say the manchild was the church? Where. Show me the quote. You will probably find it next to your proof for post-trib, so when you find it, give it to me.



Whocansatisfy,

Don't get so bent out of shape. Notice that I said, 'It seems that you believe...' This was based on your line of reasoning. I don't recall your saying that the 144k will be the manchild. But your argument was about their being a rapture after the 7th trumpet. If you have the 144k being raptured this early on in the book, and you see the book being chronological, then you don't think the 144k will be among those resurrected at the coming of Christ? You sure have a lot of raptures. And I don't see anything that points us to the idea that the manchild company are specifically the 144,000. This just sounds like guesswork.

You want me to prove 'proof' for post-trib. Post trib, or probably better, historic premillinealism is easy to arrive at. You just read scripture for what it says and don't try to redefine terms.

Paul says that the church will be raptured at the coming of the Lord. He says that the man of sin will be destroyed at the brighteness of the Lord's coming. He says that the Lord will give the church relief when he comes with vengence on the unbelievers. Given all this, it makes sense that when Paul starts off a passage beseeching the church by the coming of the Lord and the rapture, not to worry that the day of Christ has come, that he has the same time period in mind throughout the passage. It's just reading for scripture for what it says. It is the 'default' understanding.

You arbitrarily the Lord's 'coming' as two separate events 7 years apart. You label the second event as 'the day of Christ.' But I have showed you scritpure that indicates things continue on for the church 'until the day of Christ.' So your definitions are not well-grounded in Paul's terminology.

I can understand interperting Paul's phrases differently if you had some really solid scriptural evidence that demanded you do so. If scripture were clear that a rapture would occur 7 years before the coming of Christ, particularly if Paul made this argument, I could see it. But you are not able to show any scripture that makes a good case for this. You show things like, "not appointed unto wrath," and perhaps stronger, that a certain church in Asia Minor would escape things that would come on the earth.

Post-trib does not really need to be 'proved.' It is the default understanding. The burden of proof is on you to show why a straightforward reading of Paul is not true. We just look at the resurrections and raptures that _are_ in scripture and when scripture says that they will happen, and believe what scripture says. You have a complicated scenario with a rapture occurring 7 years before the Lord's coming, with no scripture telling us that this will happen.

If you care to read what I wrote, notice I said the manchild is the 144,000 from the woman Israel. Again, you have dismissed my view because you assume that I said the manchild is the church? Then you want to make the manchild the Son of God? Welcome to fantasy land!


Quote:

This is my last time to address this as you keep wanting to go around the same merry-go-round. I have dealt with your Scriptures and you keep saying that “Paul teaches…..” The best you can declare from II Thess is that Paul teaches the church will be raptured when the Lord comes for them to catch them away. And yes, the man of sin will be destroyed at the Second advent or “the day of Christ,” as Paul referenced it. You can view it any way you want, but there are two events referenced here, at least to those who want to read it that way. What you cannot do is merely declare that Paul is plain when you say that both events take place at the same time. That is simply wrong. Believe what you will, but believe it based upon the truth. It is NOT plain. To reach either conclusion requires exegesis and interpretation, so you have to make some assumptions just as the pre-, or mid-tribulationalists. The thing I hope we can agree on is, it is NOT plain.


1. See 'default understanding' argument above.
2. This does not deal with II Thes 1, which tells us that Christ will come giving the church rest, and executing vengence on them that do not obey the Gospel.

Quote:

O.K., now here is where you get real interesting. Your claim has been all along that the early church never believed in a pre-trib rapture, but you state here that they were taught that Christ was about to return right away. I’m not sure how you can come up with that if they didn’t believe in a pre-trib rapture.


Read what I wrote. Someone was teaching that the day of Christ was at hand. They were being taught that Jesus was going to come right away-- that the day of Christ was at hand. Remember, I am arguing for historical premillinealism, not pre-trib. Read my posts in that light. Paul told them not to be troubled by this idea.

Quote:

Nonetheless, you also claim that we do not know if they knew what was in Revelation. Are you sure you want to stand by that comment? I can tell you for a certainty that they did NOT know what was in Rev. simply because Rev. did not exist. Rev. was not written until all the Apostles, including Paul, were dead. If you have done any kind of study on this subject, you would know that the letters of Paul were written before most of the gospels. Therefore, John did not write Rev until after his gospel.


Sure, I want to stand by my statement. I don't mean they knew the visions and what happened in each vision. I mean it is conceivable that God revealed to Paul the timeline in which events would occur and that it was not written down in Paul's epistles, but later was recorded in scripture in the form of apocalyptic literature. Did all the apostles receive a complete revelation of the Gospel, end times etc? These are some questions I don't have the answer to, but it is conceivable.

Paul apparently spoke some things to these people that we weren't there to here, as referenced in II Thes.



Quote:
So you have to ask yourself again, “What were they afraid of?” Without the book of Rev., you have to come to the conclusion that they were afraid that the Day of Christ, His judgment, was upon them. IF, again I say IF, they believed that they were going through all the events leading up to His day, then why would they be afraid?


Paul said they were 'troubled.' Conflicting doctrines can trouble people. You assume fear here.

Also, if there were revelation going around from apostles and prophets of the really bad things that would happen in the end times, some might fear. There was extra-scriptural revelation back then. The church was 'charismatic.'

Quote:

Again, it should have been something that would excite them. That being the case, it would make no sense at all that Paul would try to comfort them by telling them, “don’t worry, you will go through hell before the Day of the Lord.” No, there is really only one conclusion in light of the facts we have. They were afraid that they had missed the coming of Christ “for the church” (ie. That they had not been accounted worthy to escape) Why? Because of the events that they were surrounded by which certainly looked like the Day of Christ was upon them. Try to imagine living back then with Nero breathing down their necks and eventually destroying Jerusalem. It would simply be lunacy to tell the church, “look, don’t worry about the terrible events that surround you because before Christ returns to earth to establish His kingdom, things are going to get much worse with the man of sin.”



Your scenario sounds reasonable IF YOU ASSUME A PRE-TRIB RAPTURE. But the problem is, where do you get the pre-trib rapture from in scripture in the first place. It isn't enough for certain passages to make sense if you assume a pre-trib rapture. Pre-trib requires reading Paul inconsistently. If there isn't any scripture to support the timing of the pre-trib rapture in the first place, then it doesn't make sense to read it into passages of scripture. So where is the scripture that teaches the pre-trib rapture.

Rapture at the second coming si the 'default' understanding. It comes from reading Paul's terminology consistently to refer to the same things. The Lord's coming means the Lord's coming, and so on.

Quote:

Be blessed. Whatever you are doing in Indonesia I pray that God will bless you and keep you.


Thanks. Btw, if I've gotten smart alek a bit in this conversation, like in that early post. I apologize. I don't think only post-tribbers are going to make it at the rapture, so I don't see this as an issue of salvation. I appreciate the ministries of many pre-tribbers. I do think pre-trib mixed with easy believism can be a dangerous combination in the end times, however.
_________________
Link
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11845
2/8/07 6:32 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Tribulation or Wrath 1Rebel4Jesus
Has it been mentioned in this discussion that tribulation and wrath are two separate words with distinct meanings? The rapture, resurrection, or "catching away" will occur after the tribulation, but prior to God's wrath. This is a very important observation that must be concluded before productive communication on this subject can proceed.

Blessings.
Newbie
Posts: 6
4/16/07 11:43 pm


View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.